tv [untitled] May 25, 2011 3:00am-3:30am PDT
>> working with the parkmerced action coalition. i cannot go without saying that the heart of this project is the demolition of 1538 homes. it's the demolition of a neighborhood. pretty much every time we've done that in this city, we regret it later. i also need to point out -- mr. sullivan makes a good argument that the density bonus exception is something slightly less than that based on the language. it is not a bad argument. the problem is there's an argument to the contrary based on the legislative history, which is equally strong, if not stronger. one final point to those of you
here today. it seems pretty clear that this board of supervisors, one way or another, is going to approve this development. i would just say that you really need to clean up the process at this point. twice, the development agreement in recent history has been amended by a web master at 5:00 p.m. on friday afternoon and we find ourselves in the position of not being able to give you the kind of input you have come to rely upon. to this this morning, i tried to get a copy of one of the exhibits and i did succeed in finally getting it finally from mr. yarne. i do not think it says what they think it says. i was in the position of talking to your aid, supervisor chiu, on a cell phone during the meeting, trying to figure out what it said. i do not want to be disingenuous with you. we are not going to change our opposition to this project, i do not believe, based on anything out there. if this project is going to have
any integrity, you need to continue this for a week or two weeks to give us a chance to look at the language and see what it says. supervisor mar: thank you. >> thank you very much. supervisor mar: mr. flores. >> good morning. carter's local 22. supervisors, madame clerk, i will say it again. tenants rights. i want to thank mr. chiu. it's in the right direction. i urge you to move forward. let's plant the seed. you are all leaders. let's leave the way for the city and county of san francisco. we know how to do things right. let's do it. let's move things forward. thank you very much, supervisors. supervisor mar: thank you. maria, as well. >> good afternoon.
i did not come down here to make friends. i came to talk about what i believe in. i also came down here to call some people out. he comes out here representing the union. you did not see him walking members of our organization -- crying while there were up. supervisor mar: what is your name? >> ben. i'm a resident of your district, supervisor mar, for eight years. supervisor mar: please speak to the measures before you and try not to attack people. >> i would like to pass this around, if you have not seen this. this is still being distributed by parkmerced. it's says "and urban place with a suburban space." nowhere does this say they want to tear it down. in the state "a place to call home, a bright, a two-story town home."
condominium called the fixtures. it goes on, "you will discover sweeping views of the lake and city that only parkmerced can offer. you always have easy access to the great lifestyle and amenities that make parkmerced a great place to live. stop by. tree shaded patio and want lawnt outside your door." we could go on. which are you to believe? what are you going to believe? these are the same people telling you two different things. is it beautiful? is it like it? many of the problems we have to
previous life when i was urban affairs person for the examiner. i used to write what the neighborhood was going to say before they did it. but anyway, i strongly think we need to move and move quickly. thank you. supervisor mar: supervisor chiu? >> so i've called all the cards. if there's anybody else at the last minute that would like to speak, please come forward. >> i am a parkmerced tenant since 1993. i opoem 100% the parkmerced project. the only acceptable alternative for me is the no-project alternative option. both the merced project will cause irrersable damage to my
health, to my family's health and to the health of the entire community but the enormous amount of toxic contaminants that will will released through the airplane by such a massive demolition and construction if this plan is approved. the c.d. is going to create a nightmare for years to come and environmental disaster that will last for three decades and will affect the physical and mental health of thousands of people by the level of decontamination tall be produced by the developer. not only on the site but in the surrounding area. please help us save our community. vote know -- no to this project.
thank you very much. >> thank you. supervisor? >> dean preston strongly opposed to this project and this mass demolition, this clear cutting of an entire neighborhood is unconscionable. i think you need to dig down deep and look at this not just on the technical issues that we have addressed and will address more, but on the fundamental choice, whether it is appropriate and a violation of city planning to give the go ahead on this. there's no way this happens on owned housing. it's only because we're talking about working class renters this is even on the table and it is absolutely outrageous. obviously spmps need to continue to matter to sprrs these amendments. i don't know of any way you can
give these the attention on the fly today. they have to be fully evaluated. two, the other problem is that the amendments don't address -- rent control enforceability is a problem. these don't address that. in other words, you can't require the developer to build new rent control housing, imposing a -- impose a $200 million control if they don't. look at the palmer case where the court threw out an inclusionary housing law. they also threw out not just the requirement for affordable housing to be built but also the in lieu fee that was built on that. the city attorney, think about the argument they're making. under their argument we can get rent control on all new crux in san francisco as long as we allow or require the developers
to putt one more unit than the zoning allows. that's not what the court is going to say. thank you. supervisor mar: thank you. if there's no one else that would like to speak -- please come forward. last speaker. >> i am mark christian son, president of the merced suspension triangle neighborhood association. i wasn't going to speak but after listening i want to comment. first of all, what benefit will there be to the existing surrounding neighborhoods? especially the neighborhood i litsch in, directly across the street. 16-20 berps, new residents, added traffic and gridlock. the pier five improvements are something that should come before the project and any guarantees that they will be fully implemented? that's the key. finally, metna will ask for air
and sam: sampling during demolition and continue it throughout the project. who will pay? it should be paid jointly by stellar management frortress group and perhaps the san francisco health department to ensupera fair and impartial monitoring system. thank you. supervisor mar: tough. no more speakers after this person. >> very quickly. like the previous speaker, i really didn't intend to speak. after having heard the various arguments this morning and having done a cursory read-through of supervisor's chiu's revisions, i would just like to ask all of you as individuals of integrity that i know you are to maybe put this on continuance, postponement.
there's a complex web of interwoven issues that need a little bit more thoughtful time. thank you. >> thank you. so with no other public speakers, public comment is closed and the item is in the hands to have committee members. president chiu, did you want to wrap up? >> i want to again thank the members of the public for all of the deep thinking and all the work that folks have spent over the years and i also want to apologize that a number of us have had to come in and out. we also had a transportation meeting as which we had to cast votes. all that said i wanted to ask a couple of questions of the deputy city attorney on some of the questions raised by some of the opponents. mr. preston and i spent time yesterday talking about the palmer decision and whether that should be a precedence in this
decision. i want you to talk about that and why that is not a reason that suggests this agreement would be unforcible. >> yes, the palmer decision, as you know, deals with a different situation. it deals with the law of general applicability. >> can you explain what that is? >> it's a city ordinance akin to our b.m.r. program, affordable units, and requiring that developers, in the future, when they receive development rights from the si that -- city that they basically are required to adopt a certain amount of b.m.r. while we've looked at that decision and read it and considered it in light of all the advice we've given to you today and in this matter, there are pieces of that decision that inform everything that we've
told you about today. however, that is not a decision that deals with the development agreement or replacement rent control under the agreement. supervisor mar: in any conversations with the developer, i have repeatedly asked the city attorney's office as well as the developer to provide my colleagues and isom information about how courts might look at that. we have received a copy of a memo from a former california supreme court justice reviewing this development agreement. i know this is a document that can be public. i want to go through some of the announcements in this and understand from you what your thoughts are. essentially the announce is that the former supreme court justice goes through and may aide has a copy of this.
under costa hawkins, this parkmerced contract comes squarely within the provisions of what is permitted. costa hawkins does allow for exceptions when a city contributes, makes city contributions or other forms of assistance. and the document on page two and three list the various forms of assassins that the city is providing that according to supreme court justice reynosa would allow the city and developmenter to allow to agree on an agreement that would be exaptable to costa hawkins. >> i have just received this opinion for the first time and i quickly scanned it but it does reiterate what we have included in the text of the development agreement, about reliance on the exception of costa hawkins for
the forms of assassins given to the city under the state bonus statutes. so it appears to be giving an opinion based on their review of the development agreement and the specific things the city is giving to the developer in the development agreement that we sit with the express exception that's in costa hawkins for contracts with public entity that is provide assassins. supervisor chu: thank you. i certainly appreciate that change is not easy. change is actually scary. what i have been as concerned about with regards to this development agreement, though, is what happens if we don't move forward with protecting ten yanlts and moving forward with a project like this. i think we all know that in the near future with -- if we don't succeed with the approach we
will need to do very significant construction to the units in parkmerced that will be passed in significant ways to the tenants, or more likely, the owner of the project will very likely need to sell off parcels of this project in a piecemeal way that will likely also involve tenants and also novel significant disruption to the community in order to keep park merced moving forward. from my perspective we don't have a lot of great options but i think this agreement not only lays out a vision that is part of what i think the future of the city should be, but i think with all of the amendments that i have made creates, in addition to the protections that we've already seen in the agreement, a lot of significant protections that i think are critical to helping protect the future of
the ten nanlts and working families that live within parkmerced. with that, colleagues, i would like to ask that you could adopt these as pieces of the underlying agreement and move this forward. mar-mile-an-hour thank you, supervisor chu. supervisor wiener? it's been moved and seconded. now discussion? >> this is on the amendment? >> yeah, on the amendment. >> i can't hear you. supervisor mar: there's been a motion and a second on the amendment and now we're discussing the amendments. >> i want to thank president chu, who i know has spent enormous amount of time on this subject and who i know has really worked hard to try to tighten up the tenant protections so that this goes beyond the protections that were proved by trinity plaza and so i'm very supportive of these
amendments and will be voting to support them. supervisor mar: thank you. supervisor cohen? supervisor cohen: supervisor, chu, thank you very much for your work and your leadership in trying to protect the renters. i would have to say i share some of the sentiments in the folks in the audience today who just received the amendments last minute. i would have prevored to have had more time to review them and have an opportunity to fully process and digest the amendments. with that said, i also had a breach conversation with michael yarney yesterday. i am in favor and will support the amendment you're proposing today but in the future we honor the process and give everyone an opportunity to speak to the proposed amendments.
thank you. supervisor mar: i appreciate president chu and his office, all the work that was done. i wish the ten nanlt organizations were more a part of the discussion but it sounds like your intent is to increase and improve the conditions for existing conditions. i wanted to ask our legal counsel. are these substantive or could they be moved forward today? >> the amendments that were made to the development agreement are within the scope of the agreement that was noticed for your hearing today. so if you wanted to move them forward, you could do so without requiring additional public comment. supervisor mar: ok. so i guess i will be supportive to have amendments, but like supervisor cohen, i do feel that there hasn't been enough transparency of the process and
that we need much more discussion on a number of the mitigations and the question of the protection of the rent controlled units still to me is not rock solid. so i definitely hear the comments from the -- a number of the tenant organizations. in all of a sudden and i don't feel comfortable with moving anything forward without further vetting by many of the stakeholder groups that are here today but i'll support the amendment. supervisor chu? supervisor chu: most of these amendments came out of conversations with tenant advocates in recent weeks and months. so i do know that not all the members of the public here had a chance to see them but i certainly appreciate the perspective of our colleagues on this. these are complicated issues and certainly we will in the coming weeks have time for folks to evaluate the language here and i will obviously continue to meet with folks to receive feedback
on that. with that obviou hands of the committee. supervisor mar: colleagues, can we move the amendments without objection? now on the amended items, supervisor wine summer supervisor wiener: thank you, mr. chairman. i am -- i move that we forward items two through five to the board and that's without recommendation because we have not voted -- we do not have a certified e.i.r. so we need to do it without recommendation. so we have had this -- this project has been around and discussed for years. there have been an enormous number of hearings whether at the planning commission before this committee, before full board of supervisorses with a very lengthy e.i.r. hearing. every conceivable view has been
expressed, every point of discussion has been had. the development agreement has been tightened in terms -- in various respects including on the ten nanlt protection issues. we held a lengthy closed session with the city attorney's office to receive additional advice about the costa hawkins and related issues. i believe we have the information that we need to move this forward to the board. and i want to give mr. omerberg and others credit for being candid that these protections are not going to convince the opponents -- the opposition to this is pretty fundamental and i truly respect that position, but i don't think that a continuance is going to change anything in
terms of the dynamics around this process and if i thought that there would be a chance to actually come up with a consensus, i'd be the first to support a continuance, but i have not heard anything at all during the course of this project that would lead me to believe that anything approaching a consensus could be had, unfortunately. i do move that by -- we forward it to the full board without recommendation. supervisor mar: also at our mar 24 later today? supervisor wiener: correct. supervisor mar: other comments, colleagues? i'm going to be voting against the motion. but i appreciate the harmed work of mr. michael yarney and mr. swits can i and alan ball from planning. there are great parts of the project, especially the transportation tier five improvements that supervisor
elsbernd raised that would not happen but for this profpblgt also the e planning and sustainable planning that is being developed is very positive. but like many of the speakers in the audience, including three planning commissioners, miss marshall from the rent board and many community based organizations, i have many questions about the project, especially, the as mr. preston called it. the clear cutting of the 1,500 rent controlled units. i'm still not convinced that it's not too risk withy and it's not a rock solid guarantee that those units will exist for the future. i feel that a lot of the speakers have raised questions about the need for rent
controlled housing. i'm acknowledging the positive aspects of the project but i feel it's too risky for those units. so i will be voting against the motion and still feel we need more time to fully vet this project but i do appreciate supervisor wiener's proposal. if there are no other comments, could we have a roll call? supervisor elsbernd is here as well. supervisor wean summer >> on the motion of items two through five to the full board without recommendations. supervisor cohen? supervisor cohen: aye. >> supervisor wiener? supervisor wiener: iowa. >> supervisor mar? supervisor mar: no. the meeting at 2:00 p.m. today. thank you so much, everyone. any other items on the agenda? >> no, there are no further items. supervisor mar: so with no other